3 ms·

The proposed solution is buying us time for other measures. It does not solve carbon emissions or prevent accumulation in the atmosphere or oceans. It might be

The proposed solution is buying us time for other measures. It does not solve carbon emissions or prevent accumulation in the atmosphere or oceans. It might be a bit too complex for a stopgap measure though. Marine cloud brightening has the same issues minus the complexity. It might be easier to pull off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening

giantg2 5y ago
The reason I asked is because the post asked about carbon sequestration, which would likely include preventing or reversing ocean acidification. Since the commenter was not addressing this part, I wanted to find out whether they had a solution for that - thus providing a complete substitute. It sounds like that's a no.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  I was thinking about doing a kickstarter to rent a boat and spread iron sulfate somewhere in the ocean. This causes a phytoplankton boom that captures some carbon. This is against the UN law of the sea but the United States is not a party to that treaty. You might have trouble if you tried to dock your boat at any countries that are not in red on this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#/media/File:United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea_parties.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... It is a little harder to do right than it sounds. The first time it was attempted there was a current that sucked the iron down into deeper ocean layers where it wasn't effective. You need a whole flotilla to do oceanographic observations to know that the iron is dispersed properly and that it really works. For the record I talked with an expert in the field (somebody who goes to those IPCC meetings) and was told NOT to do it. One argument against it is that if you promote production in one place by adding nutrients you are subtracting other nutrients and there will be less production in the future. Another is that you could create blooms of harmful organisms. The "standard" method of disposing of CO2 now is to purify it, compress it to 1500 psi and inject it into a saline aquifer or an old oil reservoir. You could get that CO2 from pyrolysis or combustion of fossil fuels or from biofuels. That last option is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_... which is a mature technology on paper but for many reasons it is not being done on any scale. The best case for it now is to capture the pure CO2 which is produced from fermentation at an alcohol plant. Whether you use fossil fuels or biofuels you have the problem that the CO2 has to be very pure to handle in the pipeline, specifically the 78% nitrogen composition of the atmosphere is problematic and you need to either separate the CO2 from the flue gases with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating or you can separate the N2 from the O2 before combustion. That kind of scheme is worth paying for in my opinion because you can measure the CO2 as it goes in the ground. This kind of thing https://www.fastcompany.com/90510254/ever-been-to-a-green-sand-beach-the-newest-geohack-to-fight-climate-change https://www.fastcompany.com/90510254/ever-been-to-a-green-sa... targets ocean acidification more directly but it's the #2 example of a scheme I don't want to pay for because there is no way to measure it. (#1 is planting trees... trees might have grown there anyway, you might cut them down, they might burn up, etc.)

giantg2 5y ago

The reason I asked is because the post asked about carbon sequestration, which would likely include preventing or reversing ocean acidification. Since the commenter was not addressing this part, I wanted to find out whether they had a solution for that - thus providing a complete substitute. It sounds like that's a no.

PaulHoule 5y ago
I was thinking about doing a kickstarter to rent a boat and spread iron sulfate somewhere in the ocean. This causes a phytoplankton boom that captures some carbon. This is against the UN law of the sea but the United States is not a party to that treaty. You might have trouble if you tried to dock your boat at any countries that are not in red on this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#/media/File:United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea_parties.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... It is a little harder to do right than it sounds. The first time it was attempted there was a current that sucked the iron down into deeper ocean layers where it wasn't effective. You need a whole flotilla to do oceanographic observations to know that the iron is dispersed properly and that it really works. For the record I talked with an expert in the field (somebody who goes to those IPCC meetings) and was told NOT to do it. One argument against it is that if you promote production in one place by adding nutrients you are subtracting other nutrients and there will be less production in the future. Another is that you could create blooms of harmful organisms. The "standard" method of disposing of CO2 now is to purify it, compress it to 1500 psi and inject it into a saline aquifer or an old oil reservoir. You could get that CO2 from pyrolysis or combustion of fossil fuels or from biofuels. That last option is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_... which is a mature technology on paper but for many reasons it is not being done on any scale. The best case for it now is to capture the pure CO2 which is produced from fermentation at an alcohol plant. Whether you use fossil fuels or biofuels you have the problem that the CO2 has to be very pure to handle in the pipeline, specifically the 78% nitrogen composition of the atmosphere is problematic and you need to either separate the CO2 from the flue gases with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating or you can separate the N2 from the O2 before combustion. That kind of scheme is worth paying for in my opinion because you can measure the CO2 as it goes in the ground. This kind of thing https://www.fastcompany.com/90510254/ever-been-to-a-green-sand-beach-the-newest-geohack-to-fight-climate-change https://www.fastcompany.com/90510254/ever-been-to-a-green-sa... targets ocean acidification more directly but it's the #2 example of a scheme I don't want to pay for because there is no way to measure it. (#1 is planting trees... trees might have grown there anyway, you might cut them down, they might burn up, etc.)